Author: Ophelia Benson

  • Wait who is the small well-funded minority?

    Female MP requests more and more and more trampling of women’s rights.

    From the top:

    While it appears that the government has successfully pushed back on some particularly harmful elements in the previous draft, the new Code of Practice will still lead to the exclusion of trans people from services and facilities that they have used without issue for a very long time.

    This will do nothing to improve women’s lives and the many struggles we face, but it will put trans people (and anyone perceived as trans) at increased risk of discrimination, harassment and violence. The Code unfortunately still represents the culmination of years of anti-trans campaigning from a small, well-funded minority who have had outsized influence in the media and in politics, and have weaponised the courts for their own ends.

    The legal situation for trans people is now deeply incoherent and means that it is untenable for them to be able live their lives with dignity. This is completely out of line with the values of equality that a Labour government is meant to champion. Instead of making this Code statutory, the government should be legislating to clarify and protect trans people’s rights, privacy and inclusion.

    She means without issues, not without issue, which is formalese for no offspring. Anyway, of course men haven’t been using women’s services and facilities without any issues! Men have been using them with lots and lots of issues; that’s how we got here.

    Yes, keeping men out of women’s spaces, jobs, prizes, organizations and so on will do a lot to improve the lives of women who have found men in their spaces, jobs, prizes, organizations and so on. That’s the point. Men do harm to women by invading spaces and taking jobs and prizes and so on that are meant for women. Saying it won’t is mindless dogma.

    Why is our influence outsized? Furthermore, what about the influence trans activists have exercised? Don’t they punch well above their weight when it comes to chat about rights and dignity and all the rest of it?

    The government should not be legislating to clarify and protect trans people’s rights, privacy and inclusion at the expense of women’s rights, privacy and inclusion. Men who pretend to be women are not, repeat not, more vulnerable or more dismissed or more bullied or more ignored than women. Quite the reverse.

  • More glaring manifestations

    How do we explain Trump?

    Does he have dementia? Or are we seeing more glaring manifestations of his legendary arrogance, which is rooted in his profound insecurity? Or is it merely the stupidity of a man who not only never reads a book but reportedly can’t even read one-page briefing papers?

    He can probably read them, i.e. he would be able to pronounce the words (haltingly) if necessary, but grasping their meaning is another matter.

    Whatever the explanation, the bottom line is sobering: The person with the power to sic the Justice Department on perceived political foes; to send masked, heavily armed, and poorly trained troops out among the populace; and to order a nuclear attack is slipping. Maybe fast. And the chance that his Cabinet or his party will do anything about it is zero, which means we’re going to have to survive two and a half more years of this.

    Assuming he lives that long.

    Trump shows his age the most in the apparently diminished functioning of his frontal cortex—the thin layer of gray matter that helps the brain make decisions and regulate itself, the part of the brain that prevents you from saying the unkind or insane thing. Trump appears unable to hold himself back. He called a reporter “piggy.” He called another a “fresh person.” He confuses Greenland (which he wanted to invade) with Iceland.

    Ruder and ruder with every day that passes. He started from Already Very Rude Indeed, so the daily increase is less than edifying.

    After the mainstream media picked up on how aggressively random and disjointed his stump speeches had become, Trump gave it a name, “The Weave,” and said it was all intentional. But the claim was nonsense. The pattern has continued into his second term—recently, for example, in a late-March Cabinet meeting about the war, when he got lost in a five-minute digression on how much money he’d saved by using Sharpies to sign legislation and executive orders.

    Now, there are people who can talk and/or write in such a way as to weave meaning from digressions, interpolations, followings up, and the like. Montaigne for example. There are good thinkers/writers who can loosen the reins on their minds with good results. Trump is not one of them.

    The third thing that caught Segal’s ear was that, on certain occasions, Trump said or posted something really shocking even for him: “The outlandish things he’s been saying when people died, right? Like Robert Mueller, I am glad he’s dead, or Rob Reiner.” Maybe that’s just an older man losing patience with decorum, Segal said; but “this feels a little bit more like dysregulation. Like, ‘I have a wildly aggressive thought, I am just going to say it.’”

    Yeah boy when you combine the sadism of a Trump with the dysregulation of a Trump you get this monstrosity we hear from every day.

    After Trump’s crazed post on Easter Sunday, Vin Gupta made national headlines by posting on X: “Erratic. Can’t finish sentences. Often confused. Illogical train of thought. Word finding difficulties. Developing and worsening gradually over time. The President is exhibiting all the signs of dementia.”

    In an interview, Gupta kept returning to the word “impulsivity.” Speaking the week after Easter, he said: “I think his impulsivity and his erratic behavior, as we’ve all seen just in the last two weeks, seems like it’s getting worse. Like he just has less of a filter. Even at baseline, he had no filter. But it seems like the disinhibition is worse. And when you think about the family history, I think reasonable people can ask reasonable questions.”

    Yeah imagine starting with no filter and then getting worse.

  • The level of urgency

    For once Congress may block some of the crazy.

    A bipartisan House effort is afoot to kill the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund created by the Justice Department that could pay allies of President Donald Trump, according to three people granted anonymity to discuss the effort ahead of a formal announcement.

    Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) have drafted text and are taking steps to unveil the legislation soon, the people said.

    Speaker Mike Johnson raised the level of urgency to block the fund among some congressional skeptics when he refused to say Wednesday whether violent Jan. 6 convicts should have access to the taxpayer money.

    I found that sentence slightly confusing. I think it means Johnson’s refusal prompted skeptics to act.

    Fitzpatrick said in an interview Wednesday he’s waiting to hear back from the Justice Department regarding a list of questions he sent Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche seeking more information about who will be able to access the fund, which was created pursuant to a settlement between Trump and the IRS.

    Fitzpatrick said his constituents and others “don’t want a DOJ slush fund that has not been described or explained to anybody.”

    Too much even for some Republicans. I wish there were more of them though.

  • Eager to cash in

    January 6 rioters celebrate:

    Supporters of President Donald Trump who tried to overturn the 2020 election are among those eager to potentially cash in from the $1.8 billion compensation fund for people the Trump administration believes were victims of government “weaponization and lawfare.”

    In interviews with CNN, convicted US Capitol rioters from January 6, 2021, fake electors and prominent election deniers said they’re hoping to tap the massive fund, which they think is long overdue.

    “I can’t even find a job answering the phone at a motorcycle dealership,” said convicted January 6 rioter Dominic Box, who spent 1.5 years in jail awaiting trial and was later pardoned by Trump. “I can’t find a way to support myself right now. I lost my career. I look forward to financial compensation. I need it. This will be a welcome relief.”

    Yes and why can’t he find even a crappy job? Because he was part of a mob that tried to overturn an election by violence. Actions have consequences.

    A lawyer for One America News, the pro-Trump channel that promoted false 2020 vote-rigging claims, also confirmed to CNN that the company is “seriously considering pursuing rights under this fund.” OAN was later dropped by most large cable providers and also settled multiple 2020-related defamation lawsuits.

    That aside, they’re a great outfit.

    Top Trump administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, have dodged questions over whether people convicted of January 6-related crimes, including people who assaulted police, should be awarded any of the funds.

    No “do the crime pay the time”? How uncharacteristic.

    Former FBI Director James Comey joked on CNN that he may also have a claim to file, given that the Trump administration tried and failed in prosecuting him for allegedly lying to Congress and now filed new charges alleging that a picture of seashells on the beach spelling out “86 47” constituted a threat against Trump.

    “It’s to compensate people who’ve been targeted by the Justice Department for, they say personal, political, or ideological reasons,” Comey told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “So, I’m guessing I’ll be in line. I hope I’ll be ahead of those who savagely beat police officers and sacked the Capitol.”

    Nah, they’ll be the first to profit.

  • Expected to confirm

    She won’t be arrested for speeding.

    Trans women must be barred from female toilets, changing facilities and sports teams, new official guidance is to state.

    Bridget Phillipson is expected to confirm on Thursday that official guidance will state what businesses and public bodies must do under the law to protect single-sex spaces.

    The guidance follows last year’s Supreme Court judgment that trans women, who were born male, are not legally women for the purposes of the Equality Act.

    Yes, it follows it from very very far back. Miles back. 13 months.

    The equalities minister’s failure to publish it until now has meant that hospitals and leisure centres are still allowing trans women into female spaces.

    The guidance was written by the Equality and Human Rights Commission and submitted to Ms Phillipson in September, but she requested several revisions before agreeing to publish it.

    You mean she extorted several revisions before agreeing to publish it.

    Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at Sex Matters, called on public bodies to stop dragging their feet and implement the guidance.

    “There never was any reason for employers and service providers to wait for this guidance before implementing the law,” she told The Telegraph.

    “The Supreme Court was completely clear that when providing single sex spaces and services, sex has to mean sex – male and female.”

    And we know what that means. It’s not some arcane mystery.

    The update to the EHRC’s code of practice – the official name for the guidance – was required after the Supreme Court ruled last April that the words “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.

    As it always had. Pretending it could refer to men who claimed to be women was just that: pretending. “Women” can’t mean “women” if it also means “some men” just as “up” can’t mean “up” if it also means “a little bit down”.

    ry-Ann Stephenson, the EHRC chairman, said in December that the guidance would give advice on ensuring “there are services provided for people who can’t or don’t want to use the services for their biological sex”.

    That sounds expensive. Can we all do that? I don’t want to take this crowded bus; dispatch a limousine for me – does that work?

    Alexandra Parmar-Yee, the director of Trans+ Solidarity Alliance, said the guidance must ensure trans people are protected as she described law as “a mess”.

    “The earlier draft of this guidance encouraged the policing of everyone’s gender based on appearance and was focused entirely on excluding trans people,” she said.

    Excluding them from what? The definition of women? Of course men are excluded from the definition of women, and vice versa. From institutions belonging to women? Of course men can find their own institutions; god knows there are plenty of them. Not all exclusion is invidious or unfair or cruel.

  • Make the women fall silent

    Dark places.

  • A minority view

    I just can’t get over the empathy for women.

    Andy Burnham has said biological men who identify as women should be able to use female toilets.

    Speaking from a meeting with Manchester’s “Youth Combined Authority” in 2022, the Greater Manchester Mayor said biological men who identify as women should be allowed to use female toilets.

    In unearthed footage obtained by the Daily Mail, Mr Burnham also said the idea single-sex spaces should be exclusive for biological women was a “minority view”.

    Yuhuh – nearly all women and most men=a minority. Makes sense.

    The comments came before the Supreme Court unanimously ruled a “woman” and “sex” under the Equality Act 2010 exclusively apply to the biological sex assigned at birth.

    So he just had no idea that men were not women. It must have been a shock to find out.

    The Makerfield by-election candidate dismissed gender-critical activists as “supposed feminists” trying to stir up “culture wars” by asking for protections in such spaces.

    Well thank god a man came along to set those stupid women straight.

  • Effectively immune

    Now what’s all this about Trump giving himself and the fam total immunity from everything forever?

    The government, without any fanfare or even announcement, quietly added some very serious terms to the settlement that are remarkably favorable to Trump and those around him.

    They say the government is “FOREVER BARRED and PRECLUDED” from bringing claims against Trump, his family or his businesses for past tax issues, up to the date of the settlement this week.

    Well how nice for them.

    If the terms are allowed to stand, Trump, his family and his businesses would effectively be immune from “claims” or “examinations” related to matters pending before the IRS, including in previously filed tax returns.

    The terms were quietly added Tuesday in a hyperlink to Monday’s original Justice Department press release.

    “quietly” – gee, I wonder why.

    Trump can use the fund to pay off scores of allies who did all manner of things — including sometimes illegal — on his behalf.

    That’s most notably the case with those who, in many cases, literally rose up in arms for Trump on January 6, 2021. Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday declined to rule out financial payments to the many already pardoned January 6 rioters who assaulted police, suggesting some of them might too have been “mistreated.”

    Diddums.

  • Sure you do

    This is the putz who has destroyed the Washington Post.

    Credit is due nowhere. Zero credit zero where.

    This is “more mature, more disciplined”?

    Pants engulfed in flames.

  • Removing information

    Are there drugs in the porridge or what?

    The Scottish parliament has been accused of making women statistically “invisible” after removing information on whether MSPs are male or female from Holyrood’s website. 

    The Scottish Conservative MSPs Rachael Hamilton and Meghan Gallacher have written to parliamentary authorities seeking a full explanation on why the decision was made and whether there are plans to reinstate female on the website as a category. 

    I bet we can guess why the decision was made. What sex people are is so last century; we need to let everyone run free, except of course women, who have to be harshly punished every time they neglect to call a man “she”.

    Until this week, the site provided an option to list MSPs by party affiliation and by gender, with options showing as male and female during the last parliamentary session. 

    However, the change has been made after the election of two Scottish Greens trans MSPs this month.

    The newly elected Glasgow MSP Iris Duane, who identifies as a trans woman, has been included in the female list, while a new option has been created for Q Manivannan, who identifies as non-binary. 

    Everybody gets a box of crayons; play time is from 10 to 10:30; nap time is 11 to midday; no pudding unless you eat all your dinner.

  • Strongest when

    How do intelligent adults let themselves get so stupid?

    …Unison stands for every member’s right to work free from discrimination, and that includes standing firmly for the rights of all women, and this includes trans women.

    And thus it includes no women.

    What is the point of talking about rights, and standing for rights? There is no point unless there are antagonists who want to deny or violate or ignore such rights. In short, cui bono? Who benefits from this ridiculous push to say women’s rights are for men? It ain’t women, so who is left?

    If you include men in women’s rights then women’s rights become meaningless. We’re watching it happen.

    Women’s rights and trans rights are not in conflict.

    Yes they are. Of course they are. We’ve been documenting and demonstrating this for more than a decade.

    Our movement is strongest when we are all together.

    Yes all together in the women’s toilets and women’s promotions and women’s refuges, yeah? Rapists in with the victims, right?

  • To you maybe

    Oh gosh, Richard not helping again.

    No, Richard, to women it doesn’t seem at all like a relatively unimportant matter. If the leader of the Lib Dems and the leader and deputy leader of the Greens disliked beans on toast that would be a relatively unimportant matter, but thinking men are women if they say they are is quite a different matter.

  • Controversial is it?

    Off the cliff.

    Federal tax returns filed by President Donald Trump, family members, the Trump Organization, and related trusts and affiliates before this week are protected from potential Internal Revenue Service enforcement actions under a controversial $1.8 billion settlement with the Justice Department, a new document posted Tuesday shows.

    The Justice Department, as part of the settlement, barred the federal government from prosecuting or pursuing “any and all claims” that could have been made by the IRS, which included “tax returns filed before” the effective date of the settlement, according to the document, signed by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

    The protection extends to Trump, his family members, the Trump Organization and “parties including trusts, parent, sister or related companies, affiliates, and subsidiaries.” It covers any pending tax audits of Trump and the others referred to in the addendum that the IRS would have been conducting at the time of the settlement.

    Blanche is Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer.

    Words fail me.

    Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, said the provision violates federal law “that prohibits interference by executive branch officials in IRS audits.”

    “Democrats are going to fight every element of this self-dealing settlement, but regardless of the outcome of those efforts, future administrations and IRS leadership should consider this illegal directive completely invalid,” said Wyden, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. “The Trump family is not above the law, no matter what Trump or his personal attorney say.” 

    Of course it’s not, but it’s going to act as if it is unless/until someone stops it.

    The settlement resolved a $10 billion lawsuit filed in Miami federal court by Trump, Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and their company against the IRS over the leak of Trump-related tax filings by an IRS employee.

    The Trumps on Monday dropped that suit in exchange for the Justice Department agreeing to finance a so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund with $1.8 billion. The fund is set up to be used to compensate purported victims of law enforcement actions by the department under the Biden administration. The Trump administration has referred to such action as “lawfare.”

    Democratic members of Congress have called the settlement a “slush fund” for allies of Trump, including defendants convicted for their roles in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot, when Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol and disrupted the confirmation of the electoral victory of former President Joe Biden.

    Blanche, during testimony to a Senate appropriations subcommittee on Tuesday morning, would not rule out allowing people convicted of assaulting police officers during the Jan. 6 riot to get compensation from the fund.

    Filth.

    I said words fail me, and they do. Filth is the only word I can summon.

  • In exchange for

    Trump is having the government give him a massive load of cash because there’s nothing corrupt about that no sireeeee.

    Trump, his two eldest sons and the Trump Organization dropped their $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service on Monday in exchange for the Department of Justice creating a $1.776 billion fund to settle claims by people who allege they are victims of so-called lawfare.

    Can you say extortion? I know I certainly can.

    A Miami federal court filing by Trump’s lawyers dropping the lawsuit suggested it effectively barred a judge from analyzing whether the president’s civil suit was legally valid and from dismissing it if she found it was invalid.

    I don’t know what that means. Is it up to Trump’s lawyers whether or not dropping the lawsuit bars a judge from whatever? Can’t the judge just say no it doesn’t and get on with her job?

    The move came days after ABC News reported the DOJ was negotiating the settlement, which was blasted by Democratic members of Congress who called the then-expected deal a “slush fund” for allies of Trump who had been prosecuted under the Biden administration.

    That’s certainly what it sounds like from here.

    A spokesman for Trump’s legal team, in a statement, said, “President Trump, his family, supporters, and countless other America First Patriots were illegally targeted by the Democrat-lead law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Justice, and the IRS.”

    “The IRS wrongly allowed a rogue, politically-motivated actor to unlawfully leak private and confidential information about President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization to left-wing news outlets such the New York Times and ProPublica, which was then illegally released to millions of people,” the spokesman said. “Similarly, President Trump was also the victim of illegal harassment and invasions of privacy as part of the politically motivated and completely discredited Russia, Russia, Russia Hoax, and the wrongful, election interfering raid of his home at Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida.”

    Oh very professional. Echo Trump’s childish wording and then fail to mention the fact that he kept cartons of top secret documents that he had zero legal right to have at his “home at Mar-a-Lago”.

    The advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington blasted the settlement, calling it “one of the single most corrupt acts in American history.”  

    “While Americans are struggling with an affordability crisis, President Trump plans to use nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money to pay off his friends and allies – including potentially the violent insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol on January 6th,” said CREW President Donald Sherman in a statement.

    “By settling his absurd $10 billion lawsuit against his own administration, Trump and the Justice Department just engaged in the most brazen act of self-dealing in the history of the presidency, and did so quickly in order to avoid the scrutiny of the judicial process, while quite likely violating the Constitution’s Domestic Emoluments Clause in the process,” Sherman said.

    Just one more reason to wish Trump had fallen off a cliff at age 13.

  • The quality of the opposition

    That thing where you say you want to make something clear and immediately proceed to make it as unclear as it could possibly be.

    I want to make something clear following recent public coverage relating to someone I was previously professionally connected with online.

    I’m deliberately not naming the individual because I do not wish to direct additional traffic towards their platforms or content.

    I appeared as a guest on a podcast hosted by that person. Since then, views and commentary have been publicly expressed which I find deeply harmful and fundamentally opposed to what I stand for, both personally and professionally. Over time I repeatedly raised concerns directly, but those conversations ultimately went nowhere.

    Wut?

    If that’s making something clear, what would making it murky look like?

    In light of recent developments I wanted to make my position absolutely clear. I do not endorse or align myself with the views now publicly associated with that platform or the individual behind it.

    I won’t be getting into public debate and request that you don’t discuss any individuals in the comments of this post. I know this situation may feel upsetting or difficult for some people and if you want to speak to me directly, you’re welcome to DM me.

    If she really wanted to make her position absolutely clear, she must be confused about the meaning of the word “clear”.

  • Refusing to use

    He won’t stand for it, I tell you.

    Holyrood’s newly elected presiding officer will crack down on MSPs who misgender their new trans and non-binary colleagues.

    In an interview with The Times, Kenny Gibson, who opposed Nicola Sturgeon’s gender reform legislation in 2022, said he would take incidents as they come.

    But he made it clear that he would not tolerate politicians deliberately or maliciously refusing to use the chosen pronouns of the newly elected Green MSPs Iris Duane and Q Manivannan.

    But why?

    There’s no such thing as “chosen pronouns”. That’s not how it works. We don’t get to make tiresome rules about language that require other people to call us something Special and Fictitious. Very young children can do that, but nobody else can. Pronouns exist to save trouble, not to generate more trouble. It’s a nuisance for all parties to repeat someone’s name with every mention, so we have generic pronouns that save us that labor. Trying to force us to use special luxury ones for just this one special person creates more labor, and anxious labor at that. The anxiety part is revealed by this silly promise to rebuke or punish legislators who get it “wrong”.

    Luxury pronouns are the kind of thing you expect from kids in first grade. They are not the kind of thing you expect from grown-ass adults legislating for a nation.

    “You have to respect what that person wants to be called,” Gibson said. “And if someone doesn’t do that, then you have to call that out in the chamber and you have to take the appropriate action.”

    No you don’t. No you don’t. No you don’t. That’s a ridiculous claim. What if that person wants to be called King Charles, or Keir Starmer, or JK Rowling, or Peter Tatchell? What if that person wants to be called Xmfzlxnx? How about BigTits or ThrobbingCock or RapeyMcRaperson?

    No, you don’t necessarily have to respect what that person wants to be called, because there are infinite possibilities of grotesquerie like the above. This fact should make the absurdity of the claim obvious, but of course it won’t.

    Nevertheless it is grotesque for adults to demand to be referred to as “she” when they’re men or “he” when they’re women. It’s a toddler game transported to a national legislature. It’s about as grotesque as grotesqueries can get.

    “If there’s a clear issue of it looks like it’s being deliberate, then you have to act on that because you can’t have someone, a member of the parliament, feeling undervalued or disrespected.”

    What about the women who are members of that parliament who feel undervalued and disrespected by men who insist on being referred to as “she”?

    “So whatever your personal views are of what they call themselves, it is what they want to call themselves, I think, which is significant.” 

    Oh yeah? What if they all want to be called Kenny Gibson? Eh? What if even one of them wants that?

    A Scottish Greens spokesman said: “If any members were to be misgendered in the chamber we would expect the presiding officer, alongside other parliamentary authorities, to ensure MSPs feel safe, secure and respected in the environment they work in.”

    At the expense of everyone else, and especially of the female part of everyone else.

    The new presiding officer said he was not expecting trouble in the new parliament with an influx of new members, a new party in Reform and a bigger Green group, but added: “If there’s trouble, it will be dealt with.”

    Gibson said: “I was shown a magic button actually yesterday where I can immediately cut it off, if necessary. I don’t expect to have to do that.”

    Great. So the MSPs have a choice between lying and being silenced. Brilliant.

  • “Trans athlete”

    From Out magazine:

    Trans athlete forced to share 1st place with cisgender girls at track meet

    Note both the deception and the discrepancy. They (the enemies) are called cisgender girls while he is called trans athlete. Listen, Out, when you’re avoiding spelling out the realities, that tells us you know they make you look like bullying shits. You are bullying shits. A rude bullying boy stole first place from two girls, and here you are trying to hide the stark facts behind the usual obfuscating verbiage.

    California’s two-time state champion AB Hernandez dominated her latest division track meet this past weekend, and despite protests and controversial policies, she aims to close out her high school athletics career with a third state championship title.

    Despite protests from people who think boys should not compete in girls’ track meets, he aims to keep competing in girls’ track meets, because he’s a greedy ruthless young shit.

    She jumped higher than any other girl and took first place in three track and field contests. But a state athletic policy enacted last year forced transgender athlete AB Hernandez to share the podium on Saturday with cisgender girls who couldn’t match her performance.

    No, the policy forced the girls to share the podium with a boy who ran in the girls’ race. It’s grossly unfair.

    The 17-year-old was apparently warming up for her next event when the long jump medal ceremony took place, so Moorpark High School’s Gianna Gonzalez stood alone on the first-place podium, despite finishing more than a foot behind Hernandez, Fox News reported. 

    Yes, because Hernandez is a boy, and it was the girls’ long jump ceremony, so he shouldn’t have been on the podium at all.

    The author of this lying drivel is Dawn Ennis, whose real name is Don.

  • [tap tap] Is this thing on?

    Jeez, where is everybody? Not a peep in 8 hours; do you all have the flu?

  • To compensate

    Excuse me?

    The Justice Department on Monday announced the creation of a $1.776 billion fund to compensate President Donald Trump’s allies who claim they were unfairly targeted by the previous administration.

    “The creation” forsooth – you mean they’re stealing our money to give it to their crooked buddies. I can’t wait to hear about the nine hundred billion fund to compensate Trump for [insert outrage here].

    It’s an unprecedented move that would allow the president’s administration to pay his supporters from a government agency he controls with taxpayer money.

    An unprecedented move aka a colossal theft in broad daylight.

    The so-called “anti-weaponization” fund, with its symbolic 1776 figure, is likely to face immediate challenges in court from Democrats and watchdog organizations who say the effort amounts to corruption by allowing the president to enrich allies over what critics they say are unfounded claims of political prosecutions by the Biden administration.

    Gosh ya think? It could hardly be more obviously corruption if it painted CORRUPTION on the roof and front door.

  • Four years later

    New health boffin doesn’t know what a woman is.

    The new Health Secretary has claimed that the definition of a woman is up for “debate” after arguing that trans women are women.

    James Murray, a Starmerite minister chosen to replace Wes Streeting, previously said he defined women as “adult female and trans women”.

    Adult human female and men.

    Maybe he should be moved from Health to something less…physical?

    He said it was very important to have “this debate” in an unearthed interview in which he defended a transgender swimmer competing against female athletes.

    So in other words he’s yet another man who does not give a flying fuck about women and our rights. Good to know.

    Stuart Andrew, the shadow health secretary, told The Telegraph: “It is striking that the Health Secretary responsible for women’s healthcare appears unable to answer a basic question about biological sex.

    “His role oversees maternity services, breast cancer screening, female hospital wards and the rules on single-sex spaces for patients and staff.

    “These are serious issues that shape care and safeguarding across the NHS. Following the Supreme Court judgment, clarity on biological sex is not optional. The Health Secretary should be able to define a woman without implying it is up for debate.”

    I hate it when the Tories are right and Labour is contemptibly wrong. I hate having my nose constantly shoved in the fact that men on the left will destroy women’s rights with a cheery grin on their faces.

    A source close to the Health Secretary said on Friday evening: “These comments were from four years ago. It’s safe to say James’s position has evolved since that interview.

    “He really welcomed the Supreme Court ruling which made the law clear in this area and looks forward to upholding the new guidance that will be published on single-sex spaces”.

    But four years ago he thought some men were women. That should be a disqualifier.